If, over the course of the campaign, everyone is the protagonist equally, then it doesn't add much value, I believe, to even bother labelling anyone as the protagonist, or worrying about who the protagonist is.
Like I said, there are some clear parallels to fiction writing. But there are a number of things that are different. Pacing isn't always the same, for instance. Side treks, asides, all kinds of wierd things that would make for a horrible novel-writing actually make for great RPG sessions.
Like barsoomcore, I think it's great to understand some literary theory, but at the end of the day, something like an RPG is much more visceral and instinctive than rule-oriented and categorizable. I know what makes a good session for me from experience and trial-and-error of many years, not from narrative theory of any kind. While I can use some narrative theory to enhance my GMing, some of the things you specifically mention rub against the grain of my experience, and I trust my experience more.
Then again, it's entirely possible, and I suspect from reading Bendris' more recent posts, that are differences are more about terminology and semantics rather than truly substantial in terms of style, but that's hard to tell in this kind of medium.
